Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/27/1989 - Minutes PCPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City of Orange December 27, 1989 Orange, California Wednesday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott ABSENT: Commissioner Hart STAFF PRESENT: Joan Wolff, Sr. Planner and Commission Secretary; John Godlewski, Administrator of Current Planning; Jack McGee, Director of Community Development; Bob Herrick, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Johnson, City Engineer; and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: MINUTES OF DECEMBER 4, 1989 Moved by Commissioner Master, seconded by Commissioner Scott, that the Minutes of December 4, 1989 be approved as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1797-89 - PAC TEL CELLULAR: A proposed Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a cellular phone antenna structure higher than the maximum 30 foot height permitted in the C-2 (General Business) District. The antenna is proposed to be 60 feet in height, and located on the south side of Chapman Avenue, west of the 55 (Costa Mesa/Newport Beach) Freeway, addressed 1922 East Chapman Avenue. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1323-89 has been prepared for this project. Chris Carnes presented the staff report. The request is for a Conditional UG:, Permit to allow an antenna to exceed the maximum height in the general commercial zone. The proposed antenna is ~1 feet high and the maximum height in the commercial zone is 30 feet. The antenna is proposed oii the existing Midas Muffler Shop site, on the south side of Chapman Avenue, just west of the 55 Freeway on ramp. The antenna will be used for the transmission of cellular phone signals and in conjunction with the antenna will be an underground vault that will. contain fully automated transmission equipment. On July 5 the Flanning Commission Planning Commission Minutes December 27, 1989 - Page 2 denied a request by the same applicant for a similar type facility that was located on a site south of the Midas Muffler site. The Commission denied the request because they felt it was not compatible with the surrounding residential areas. The proposed project is not adjacent to any residential properties. Staff's review of the project found this should not create the problems the Commission felt the other one would have created since this project is screened from the residential area by existing buildings, the equipment will be stored under ground, the antenna is 15 feet shorter than the other antenna, and the project, when installed on the Midas Muffler site, will not affect code compliance of that property in terms of removing landscaping or parking. There are enough parking spaces available on the Midas Muffler site to provide parking for any service vehicles needed for the antenna site. Seven conditions of approval are recommended in the staff report. The public hearing was opened. Applicant W. L. North, 2355 Main Street, Irvine, Director of Engineering for Pac Tel Cellular in Los Angeles, made himself available for any questions that may arise and explained their reasons for moving to the front of Chapman from the earlier depiction of the project. They were able to have designed for them an under ground vault, the top of which would be three feet below the soil. They have made noise tests and found that the noise i.s zero from on top of the vault. Any work performed inside would not be heard. They feel they have been able to mitigate that. He offered their assistance in any off site mitigation to help buffer that area adjacent to the residential area that they left, recognizing they still have potential noise that may come from the freeway. As a neighbor on the property, they would like to offer some kind of thicker screen, in the form of additional block work or something they could work out through the ~3uilding Department and with the owners of the property. At the request o.f the Mayor at their last appeal, the question came up as to the potential interference to television reception and they did install a transmitter that would sweep the entire ban of cellular radio. They installed two bays of equipment and conducted tests. They asked an independent television firm in Los Angeles, Satellite Communications, to conduct the tests and swept the video spectrum. They turned the cell on and off and demonstrated that there was no interference to either VHF or UHF signals. That study is available if staff would like a copy. He brought a depiction of the U.S. Frequency Allocation, which was left with staff, that shows their frequencies are far removed from any radio or television FM reception. Planning Commission Minutes December 27, 1989 - Page 3 Commissioner Master finds it honorable for them to go sub surface to keep the noise down when working within the unit. What is the situation when they're between a parked truck and the device underground? Will this work occur in off hours? Mr. North said there were emergency times when something might fail. They would like to be able to restore the facility if it should fail off hours. They are willing to abide by any restriction placed on them, but would like permission to make emergency visits 24 hours per day. It does not happen often. In the past several months they have monitored and have put restrictions on visits to the site. On an average, they might have an emergency call that would occur in the evening once every two months. Visits during the day would not be as intensive as the work being conducted in the commercial sector. He understands the residents are still concerned and would like to try and bridge that concern. They are committed to maintaining order and being a quieter neighbor than now exists. Chairman Bosch said the staff report indicated night time emergency visits are limited to once every three months. Mr. North responded that was only an average. Chairman Bosch asked if the property owner has reviewed the conditions of approval and concur with them? Mr. North said they have reviewed them and the property owner feels they can work out those conditions. He does have some concern that this would abut the signage, but .it can be worked ou t. Chairman Bosch was specifically interested in Condition 6 which requires an additional 10 feet of street right-of-way dedication. (Everyone was aware of that.) Those speaking in opposition James Snyder, 127 S. Wayfield #B, feels there are quite a few emergencies. They have called the police about them parking six feet from their bedroom wall. It displeases them about how intrusive they are with the families in the neighborhood. It's not right to let a business come in and directly infringe on the rights of the people. The workers have yelled at them over the fence, awakened them at 3:00 a.m. and he was happy the police responded to the way the people acted. They have not tried to work with the neighbors at all. Their first contact was this evening before the meeting. That's not a proper way to operate. The people park next to the people living on the street (in the cul de sac) . Planning Commission Minutes December 27, 1989 - Page 4 Commissioner Greek asked for specific occurrences on when the police were called and how many times it happened? Mr. Snyder submitted letters from the Mayor's Hotline: October 31, November 6, and November 20. He felt the third letter was inappropriate because it ignored everything that had been said before. When they called the police, it was a last resort. It was after they tried to speak to the people first. They have been disturbed approximately 2 times since August. It should not be the responsibility of the residents to watch their back yard wall each evening. Commissioner Scott asked Mr. Snyder if he were aware they had relocated the antenna to 90 feet from the residential area? Mr. Snyder was aware they were planning on relocating the antenna, bu t they haven't moved anything. As a matter of fact, they have installed equipment since the last meeting. The biggest problem is their operating times. Elaine Snyder, 127 S. Wayfield #B, confirmed her husband's testimony. They haven't tried to work with anybody. Even if they move the antenna to another part, they will still park their cars behind their wall. The problem isn't when they are inside working. The problem is when they are outside. They don't care and they have not been nice. Gerald Wolf, 1121 Dorsetshire, Santa Ana, owns the duplex where the Snyder's live. His concern is with the history of the situation. Out of the clear blue sky a number of months ago Pac Tel appeared on the scene and started to erect this tower next to the Snyder's bedroom. No contact was made with them. As the owner of this property, he becomes concerned when his tenants have their peaceful enjoyment interfered with. He is concerned about the non-residential uses in a residential zone. At the City Council hearing they made a determination that this was a non-conforming use and an application had never properly been made and that it had to be removed. The tower still has not been removed nor has the use been stopped. By the company moving the antenna 90 feet, it is not going to alleviate the problem. They should put it into a commercial zone where it is proper. This is a substantial interference with the existing residential properties regardless whether it is placed 90 feet or 10 feet from the residents' area. If the Commission decides to approve the project, there should be strict conditions such as no service can be accomplished after 9:00 p.m. and before 10:00 a.m.. If there is going to be an emergency, they should have an obligation to contact all residents and put them up in a hotel for that evening. Also, the trucks should be required to park in the Midas Muffler parking lot that fronts Chapman. Planning Commission Minutes December 27, 1989 - Page 5 Gordon Howie, 137 S. Wayfield #1, said the pole was no more than 10 feet from his property line. He was not aware of Pac Tel's pole or use until it was erected. All communication was verbal, including the blue language; nothing in writing. To establish his property rights, he put up No Trespassing signs. They put up a fence and took two feet of his property. He complained to Midas Muffler and the fence has been changed, but the debris that was thrown at his fence caused it to tilt. One of his tenants complained because of being awakened at 3:00 a.m. They suggested she turn on her air conditioner to muffle the sound. Those people have not kept their word nor have they been good neighbors. Joseph Delgado, 137 S. Wayfield #2, was a tenant of Mr. Howie's. He felt it was obnoxious for them to be doing this. It's a basic violation of peace and serenity to the neighborhood. RPhuttal Charles Mergolan, 1922 East Chapman, owner of the Midas property. He appreciates the City of Orange giving him an honorary presentation for having an overall appearance and maintenance contributing to the beautification of the community. He understands the situation of the neighbors. He feels it will be corrected by the fact that it has been moved 90 feet away from the property line. They have also indicated they will put up a sound buffer. They will continue to keep their property up. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Greek stated they had the same problem in July; noise is the same problem again. The use is not compatible with the area. He can't see any change from then to now. He wants to review the police records to determine how many occasions there have been problems. Commissioner Scott suggested a 30 day continuance to give Pac Tel an opportunity to converse with the residents to mitigate the problems and review the new location. Commissioner Master has not heard Mr. North say it will not happen again. He would like some commitment from the applicant. Conditions should also be required regarding parking and service hours and if there is a repeated reporting of noise and disturbances, that the C.U.P. be revoked. Commissioner Greek said they installed the antenna without any kind of permit. It has been denied twice. Planning Commission Minutes December 27, 1989 - Page 6 Chairman Bosch felt there was a collateral issue -- a continuing concern over the on-going non permitted use that has not been abated despite the denial of the permanent installation. It appears through the Mayor's Hotline letters that Mr. Snyder presented they have some information that the C.U.P. allows experimental or test installations. That doesn't necessarily overcome the City's permit processes. If true, it appears that if the location were denied while they looked for another location, the current non-conforming use would continue until resolved. He was unhappy they have not heard any verifiable assurances from the applicant that there will be some method of mitigating on going problems for the neighbors in the area. With regard to the new installation, which has not been well addressed by the opponents because that information has not been shared with them by the applicant, as a good neighbor should do. Can there be appropriate conditions applied that will bolster the assurances of Mr. North with regard to desire to buffer noise, mitigate impacts, control parking with a modified plan? There is an underlying issue of how they arrive at the approval of a C.U.P. They are looking for these type of antenna to be controlled within commercial and institutional properties. The distance from residential remains an issue. The Commission is being asked not only to look at the additional height permitted subject to the issuance of the C.U.P. , but also a greater height is permitted when it's an accessory use to the basic use and not negatively impacting the adjacent residential area. He would like to see revised exhibits by the applicant that would demonstrate how they would mitigate the permanent installation's impact on the neighbors. He would also like to know what they need to do with regard to the police powers of the City to enforce the existing ordinances and abatement to this nuisance. Mr. Herrick addressed the issue on police power. He did some research and contacted the Public Utilities Commission to determine whether or not there was any state law that pre-empted City police powers in this area. The indication was that the City does have the power to abate this as a non-conforming use of a non-permitted use if it were the Commission's decision not to grant the C.U.P. Chairman Bosch asked if the applicant concurred with a continuance and to demonstrate what positive action could be taken to stop the on-going nuisance? Mr. North concurs to a continuance. He apologized for the omission of their commitment to be a good neighbor. They will only operate during the day time hours. He suggested the hours of operation be the same hours as Midas Muffler. He will ensure their parking occurs outside the area and toward the front of Chapman, shown on their exhibit. He Planning Commission Minutes December 27, 1989 - Page 7 welcomed the opportunity to meet with the residents to see what can be worked out in order for them to be a good neighbor and still bring value to the community. Chairman Bosch wanted Mr. North to understand the City should take immediate steps to cause abatement and cessation of activity on the site, other than the hours of operation of Midas until a permanent solution is found. (Mr. North agreed to that.) Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission continue Conditional Use Permit 1797-89 for a period of 30 days (to the meeting of February 5, 1990) and the applicant to work with the neighbors and review not only the hours of operation, but also to review their proposal on the sound barrier. Their operations, during the abatement period, to be only during the working hours of Midas Muffler. Violation subject to immediate abatement under the full authority of the City. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Scott, Master NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED Commissioner Greek requested staff to obtain copies of all police reports since last July regarding complaints against Pac Tel. IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1800-89 - SERGIO AND SHELLY DELGADILLO: A proposed Conditional Use Permit to allow an office building in the M-1 zone on property located on the east side of Cypress Street between Sycamore and Palm Avenues, addressed 353 North Cypress Street. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1325-89 has been prepared for this project. A staff report was not presented and the public hearing was opened. Applicant Earl Mellott, represented the office building, The staff report not that at al off the site. 1035 North Armando Street, Anaheim, Delgadillo's for the project. It's a small 1200 square feet with storage in the rear. calls it a rock crushing business, but it's 1. It's a demolition company that does work There would not be any type of demolition Planning Commission Minutes December 27, 1989 - Page 8 work or storage of that nature on the site. There are three conditions they would like to discuss. The style of the building -- they took pictures of all buildings on that block. The closest thing that would meet that condition was a Spanish looking building. His client liked that look so that's the type of building they have proposed. The feel it is appropriate for the historical district. The second item is the concrete block wall along the south property line. They indicated they would put up a chain link fence with slats in between to hide viewing. The reason they did not want a block wall was that his client was trying to negotiate with the next door neighbor to buy that property. It was felt if they put up the block wall and then bought the property, it would have to come down again. Since this is a Conditional Use Permit for an office in an industrial area, it was their opinion if they had an industrial use, which might be more detrimental to a residential neighborhood, a block wall would not have to be put up. The last thing is the parking. They worked with staff on the parking with two or three different plans. He felt it was adequate the last time they brought it to the staff, but they're not sure if there is enough room to turn around easily. The public hearing was closed. Chairman Bosch noted with regard to the applicant's questions relative to the appearance, the conformance to the design guidelines within the Old Towne Historic area and review and approval by the Design Review Board is in fact the City ordinance method of approval over and above the Planning Commission's decision with regard to the appropriateness of the C.U.P. Commissioner Master had concern with the block wall along the south property line. The applicant is proposing chain link. Whether he buys the property is not in the Commission's purview. The block wall should remain as a condition. Commissioner Greek's concern was with parking. Is the storage really needed? If the storage were eliminated, parking could be provided and the potential of developing the storage into additional office space. The current site design with regard to parking is inappropriate because of the lack of back up space. It will be difficult for anyone to back out of the parking spaces and turn around. Perhaps the plot plan could be revised to better utilize the parking or eliminate the storage space. Chairman Bosch shared the concern with parking and the trash truck access. He's not in favor of trash in the front yard, but there will be a potential problem for parking in the rear. Planning Commission Minutes December 27, 1989 - Page 9 Commissioner Scott concurs there are problems with parking and traffic. Some adjustment to the plan might correct it. Chairman Bosch asked the applicant if there was room for minor adjustment to the design to resolve the problem? Mr. Mellott was not aware staff felt there was a problem and he didn't find out until he received a copy of the report yesterday. He thinks the storage could be moved to the back of the property line and open the area for backing up. He was willing to come back to the Commission with a revised plan. It would take him approximately one week to submit a new plan. Ms. Wolff said in order to prepare a staff report and review the new material, it could not be heard until February 5. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Greek, that the Planning Commission continue Conditional Use Permit 1800-89 to the meeting of February 5, 1990, at which time they can review the revised plan representing the concerns of the Commission, as well as the staff. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hart Greek, Master, Scott MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1798-89 - LOUIE LOUIE'S RESTAURANT: A proposed Conditional Use Permit to allow the expanded use of a 6300 square foot restaurant to an entertainment establishment on property located on the northeast corner of Main Street and Town and Country Road, addressed 777 South Main Street. NOTE: This is a Class 23 exemption as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA. There was no opposition and a report was waived. The public hearing was opened. Applicant full reading of the staff Louis Nigro, 777 South Main Street #70, one of the owners of the restaurant. They have been in business for over six years and are very successful. They've had an entertainment Planning Commission Minutes December 27, 1989 - Page 10 license through the City for the last 2 1/2 years for live entertainment. They feel it's time to go ahead with dancing. Their security is provided by Orange County Probation Officers; their insurance is through Farmers. Parking is adequate with 402 spaces. Commissioner Master asked if the condition pertaining to hours of operation was a problem? Mr. Nigro stated it was. The customers come in early and go home early so they have been starting at 9 p.m., finishing about 1 a.m. It hasn't been a problem and they would like to continue with those hours. Ms. Wolff stated the condition was a recommendation from the Police Department. At the Commission's discretion, the condition could be changed. Commissioner Greek asked if Mr. Nigro had read the staff report and if he had problems with any of the other conditions. Mr. Nigro had a problem with the uniformed off-duty officers (Condition 7). Commissioner Greek asked him specifically about Condition 2 and does he agree to it? The condition does not make sense. The wording does not say anything except the applicant will hold the City harmless and indemnify them for everything. Mr. Herrick responded the City Attorney's Office looks for the relationship to the project itself, interpreting that to mean reasonably acceptable to the City and indemnifying the City. An accident on the 405 Freeway in Fountain Valley would be unreasonable. Commissioner Greek asked the City Attorney to put some reasonable words into the condition to be included if the C.U.P. were approved. Mr. Herrick inserted additional wording to the condition: "Applicant shall execute and record an agreement to indemnify and hold harmless the City of Orange from any and all liability arising out of the applicant's business in form and substance reasonably acceptable to the Office of the City Attorney." Commissioner Scott asked about Condition 7, uniformed security officers as defined by the Business and Professions Code. Mr. Nigro said their security officers are not in uniform; they wear Louie Louie's t-shirts. Planning Commission Minutes December 27, 1989 - Page 11 Mr. Herrick could not tell the Commission what the Business and Professions Code says although his recollection is that uniformed security officers have a special permit that is required through the state. Chairman Bosch asked if this were a typical condition for live entertainment and have they had problems assuring that previously approved applications conform to this? Ms. Wolff was not aware of any dther applications where there have been problems. The conditions were drawn from the code, Section 17.44. One of the provisions which the Commission can apply, reading verbatim from code, "At least one licensed uniformed security guard must be provided for each 50 people or fractional number thereof." If it appears inappropriate, they are guidelines for the Commission°s interpretation. Commissioner Master asked if such a condition were imposed on the new Red Onion in the Koll Center? (It was unknown.) Commissioner Greek said they did not want to be unduly harsh with this application and would like to give them the same conditions as everyone else. Mr. Herrick's understanding of the ordinance that the City has, which is also the same as the ordinance in other cities, has traditionally accepted off-duty peace officers from various branches of state and local government as being included within that category of licensed officers. The real issue is reference to the Business and Professions Code, and the Commission may want to use the language in the City's code. The public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 1798-89 amending Condition 2, as recommended by Commissioner Greek with proper wordage provided by the City Attorney (stated above); the hours of operation (Condition 3) be changed to 9:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m.; and delete Business and Professions Code from Condition 7, but add "licensed" security officer. Plus the number required would be according to the City's code, one per 50. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission Minutes December 27, 1989 - Page 12 IN RE: NEW HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1804-89 - CITY OF ORANGE: A proposed Conditional Use Permit to establish a job center for day workers, and to also permit use of the site for a community resource and cultural center on property located on the west side of McPherson Street, approximately 580 feet north of Chapman Avenue. NOTE: Negative Declaration 1326-89 has been prepared for this project. Joan Wolff presented the staff report. The property is located on McPherson Street. It has a split zoning -- commercial (C-1) and multi-family residential (R-3). The property to the south is zoned C-1 and is commercially developed; to the west is the 50 foot railroad right-of-way and beyond that are single family residences in the R-1 zone. To the north the property is zoned R-3 and is vacant. There is a concrete plant further to the north of the vacant land. To the east across McPherson is an apartment complex in the R-3 zone. The proposed use of the site is for a job center and a community resource center. The job center is proposed for the use of legal residences, documented workers, and employers. And, it has been proposed as a potential solution to the day workers solicitation problems which have occurred along East Chapman Avenue. These problems have occurred in commercial parking lots and in residential areas. The City Council has dealt with this issue for quite awhile and has recently adopted two separate ordinances: one which prohibits employment solicitation on non-residential parking areas throughout the city; the other ordinance prohibits employment solicitation within the public right-of-way in an area defined precisely within the ordinance is generally the East Orange area. This project is intended to provide a single location for the activities which are now spread out along East Chapman. The site, until recently, could only be accessed via Chapman, which is to the south. The Council has authorized the extension of Spring Street, westward from its existing terminus at Prospect and this two lane facility has recently been constructed. It is nearing completion at this time; therefore, there will be two ways in and out of the site, in addition to providing the Spring Street extension would be providing additional exit potential for the concrete trucks that are currently leaving the plant. The proposed site plan does meet building and zoning code provisions. Fencing, landscaping and building placement h as been designed in order to contain the use on the site and help buffer the adjacent properties, particularly, the single family residences to the west from the proposed use. Planning Commission Minutes December 27, 1989 - Page 13 The public hearing was opened. Those speaking in opposition Nicky Calagna, 1135 East Culver, was not really in opposition, but wanted to make one comment. In the other hearings at the Council level and at study sessions there has never been any referral to a community resource or culture center on that property or in conjunction with the activity that was proposed for this site. She was wondering why that has been included at this point and whether or not this will be going back to the Council for public hearing? Ms. Wolff said the use of the site as a resource center has been discussed recently as a result of Council action. The initial use will be for the job center site. It is likely that any additional expansion of the use to include a resource center would involve the acquisition of additional property. The modular building that is proposed does have enough room in it that various other activities (i.e. INS and other types of community social services informational positions) may be able to be filled in that building and provide additional information for the community. Ms. Calagna's point was that there has never been any reference to any kind of social services dealing with community resources or anything of that nature that has been brought up at any of the other hearings. She feels the citizens of Orange have not had any input as to whether or not they want a community center or a resource center at that site, or anywhere else in the City for that matter. It is not appropriate to vote for something where there has been no public input. Steve DeShanes, 2744 Killingsworth (cross street Malena), directly adjacent to the proposed area. He was concerned about early morning noise, traffic and security guards. He was interested in how they were going to treat the fence border between the properties, and how the transient workers were going to be handled who would be hanging around after the so-called jobs became available and not available -- where do they go from there? He has had people jumping over their fences to hide from INS. In some cases they've had transient people residing back there. What will be done to protect their neighborhood? When will the project be completed and what time frame is there? William Anderson, Attorney representing Elcus and Associates, 2107 N. Broadway, #306, Santa Ana, owners of Lot 11 of the G. Howard Thompson Tract. Part of the project site as depicted is utilizing the old vacant Center Street. His client owns the southerly half of the street. They have Planning Commission Minutes December 27, 1989 - Page 14 been in negotiation with the City Attorney. He submitted a two page letter and read it for the record. They strongly object to the application. Raren Willis, 143 S. Swidler Place, had a few questions. The project is close to a problem apartment complex. There are also some duplexes in the neighborhood that are now gating their street with a security guard and gated access so they no longer will have people enter through their property. How will the City mitigate people climbing fences in the neighborhood? She had a problem with the City getting into the hiring business. There can be legal complications if some one is hired from there and not paid by the employer, that the City can be held liable. Will the City be verifying with the INS that each and every one of these people is a documented legal worker because if not, the City can be liable for helping to hire illegal aliens. Chairman Bosch asked about hours of operation and security? Ms. Wolff said the proposed hours of operation are 6:00 a.m. to 12 noon. It is proposed that a police officer will be on site during the operating hours. Fencing was mentioned as a concern. There is a condition requiring that fencing be approved by the Police Department. Chain link fencing is proposed, although the Police generally require some kind of a non-climbable fence around a site. The City would like to move forward on this as quickly as possible. Ordinances have been adopted by the Council and the Council would like to provide some means of establishing a center where work can be solicited and employment be gained. She was not familiar with the gating of the apartment complex. The City Attorney's Office is now preparing some sort of operational guidelines/standards, but a procedure has not been finalized under which the Center will operate. Chairman Bosch wanted clarification on the fencing: will perimeter fencing be required? (Yes.) Regarding fencing and control of access to and from the site from the apartment complex to the east and private residences to the west? Ms. Wolff said there was no gating proposed on the fences that are on the north, west and south sides of the property. There are driveways proposed into the site and security fencing is not proposed along McPherson Street; rather some sort of shorter barrier that may provide a containment aspect to the uses on the site, but will not physically prohibit entering and exiting the site. Landscape buffering was also explained and discussed by the Commission. Regarding the 42" wall within the public right-of-way, Mr. Planning Commission Minutes December 27, 1989 - Page 15 Johnson said the wall was meant to be both landscaping and a barrier. The City does allow 42" walls in the set back. Because it is a public facility, maintenance is going to be the City's responsibility and there would not be a problem with it located in the right-of-way. Chairman Bosch stated there is still the underlying question brought forward by Mr. Anderson's testimony with regard to ownership of property at the south end and any easements relative to Center Street. Mr. Herrick said the City Attorney's Office believes Mr. Anderson's claims are without merit. His theory is based on an abandonment of the street, a statute that creates a presumption as to the return of title with respect to abandoned streets. In this case, the street has not been abandoned and the property in question as part of Center Street was not part of the grant to the property owners wi1Ci are now claiming title to that half of the road. Commissioner Scott questioned the proper notice of the C.U.P., whether or not it included the cultural center? Mr. Godlewski pulled out the legal notice of public hearing from the file. It was published in the paper and also sent out to a 300 foot radius. The request was stated, "To establish a job center for day workers and to also permit the use of the site for a community resource and cultural center." It was included in the notice. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Greek's position was to treat the applicant like anyone else and not make any special provisions just because it is the City. His concern is property ownership. The claim may be wrong, but two people both claim they own the property. If this were another development, the Commission would ask for clarification before taking action. The maps don't match and he could not tell where Center Street is on the zoning map or on the map that is part of the application. Mr. Johnson explained Center Street was the southerly 60 feet of the project. The southerly 30 feet is the area in dispute with the attorney who spoke earlier. Commissioner Greek asked if the City were leasing the entire site from the railroad or just leasing a portion of it? Mr. Herrick stated the City originally entered into a lease based on a title report from the title company that indicated the property was owned in fee title by the Planning Commission Minutes December 27, 1989 - Page 16 railroad company. The title company then changed that report and showed some interest in Mr. Elcus' clients. They then changed it again and the title company has admitted they have completed fouled up the title on this property. They have re-researched it and determined that it was in fact a street that had not been abandoned. The access will not be any. more limited to that area for street purposes than it is currently. Chairman Bosch heard that the southerly 60 feet of the plan before them is in fact the Center Street right-of-way. (Correct.) It shows the landscaping buffer along the south part of the southerly 60 feet, which would seem to limit access to the property to the south from the public street. Commissioner Greek was unhappy with the answers heard and the way it is being handled. Obviously, if the City does not have the rights to the property, they can't develop the project. He asked what was going on? He felt this should be postponed or dropped. Moved by Commissioner Greek, seconded by Commissioner Master, that the Planning Commission postpone Conditional Use Permit 1804-89 to the second meeting in February until they get some clarifications as to ownership and rights of property. Staff is to respond to all concerns with regard to the proposal and conditions. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED IN RE: REFERRAL FROM THE CITY COUNCIL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 13901, ZONE CHANGE 1068, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1589, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1143 - BURNETT/EHLINE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY: The applicant is proposing the following: 1. General Plan Amendment to redesignate a portion of the site from open space to low density residential, and a portion from open space and low density residential to local commercial. 2. Zone Change application from R-1-7 (Single Family Residential minimum lot size 7,000 square feet) to PC (Planned Community) and C-1 (Local Business) . 3. Conditional Use Permit application to allow the creation of 160 single family lots without direct street frontage. Planning Commission Minutes December 27, 1989 - Page 17 4. Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the property and to allow the creation of 160 single family lots, two commercial parcels, public and private streets and greenbelt areas. NOTE: Environmental Impact Report 1143 has been prepared for this project. (This item has been previously heard by the Planning Commission on the following dates: August 21, September 11, Study Session, September 18, October 9 and December 11, 1989 Study Session.) Ms. Wolff stated this item was previously heard by the Planning Commission, action was taken and plans were revised; the City Council referred it back to the Commission. At the present time the applicant is proposing a General Plan Amendment to redesignate a portion of the site from open space to low density residential, retaining the low density residential designation on a portion of the site, and changing a portion from open space and low density residential to local commercial. Also proposed is a zone change application from R-1-7 to P-C and C-1. The conditional use permit application has been filed to allow the creation of 160 single family lots without direct street frontage due to a proposed private street system and a tentative tract map to subdivide the property and to allow creation of 160 single family lots, two commercial parcels, public and private streets and greenbelt area. It was staff's recommendation to re-open the public hearing because of the substantially changed nature of the project. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Lynn Burnett, Principal with Burnett/Ehline Development Company, 2050 South Santa Cruz Street, Anaheim, said the project they were presenting at this meeting is a development plan for the property known as the Santiago Golf Course. They are the owners of the property having closed escrow in July, 19$9. This is an extremely difficult property to plan. Major site constraints and very important concerns of the surrounding neighbors severely restricts and dictates the design alternatives possible for the property, including such design elements as lot size and site configuration. He reviewed their plan for the property, as well as the rationale from which it has evolved. The property is proposed by Santiago Creek Associates, which is a partnership of the Burnett/Ehline Development Company and the William Lyon Company. The project area encompasses 37 Planning Commission Minutes December 27, 1989 - Page 18 acres and it's made up of four pieces. The first site totals 26 acres and was previously known as the Santiago Golf Course. The second site contains 21 single family homes that are currently boarded up and condemned. They are in escrow to purchase that site subject to approval of the project. Lastly, there are two components: one owned by the City (approximately 1.1 acres) and the site to the extreme west, which is presently owned by the County. The two sites total 5.5 acres. From 1959 to July, 1989 the property was privately owned and operated as a nine hole golf course. This property was zoned R-1-7,000 in the late 1950's. For the past 10 years the property has been on and off the market. Two previous projects have been proposed. One in 1983 by Frost Development, which proposed a project of 150 apartment units. This was later modified to become a plan of 214 condominiums and single family residences on approximately 19 acres. This plan was denied by both the Planning Commission and the City Council. In rejecting the plan, however, the Council stated density should be limited to 12 units per acre. The next project to be proposed was the Century American plan for 146 condominiums also on approximately 19 acres. This plan had a density of 8.6 dwelling units per acre. The plan was approved in March, 1985 by the Planning Commission, but was later withdrawn by the developer prior to final City Council review. Burnett/Ehline became involved with the property in November, 1985. Over the past four years, as a result of the City's requirement to extend La Veta, changing infrastructure requirements, adjacent land assembly and community input, their plan of 471 apartments was reduced to 408, then modified further to become 180 single family detached homes with a seven acre commercial retail component. In response to concerns raised by the Commission at the October 9 hearing, the plan has been further refined. A slide show was presented as part of their presentation. When looking at a zoning map, the surrounding area has a variety of uses ranging from commercial retail to residential. When you look at the site residentially there are a variety of housing alternatives available. Those include single family detached on both 6,000 foot lots and also 7,000 foot lots. There are condominiums, duplexes, apartments and mobile homes all contiguous to the site. Some examples of nearby projects are the commercial projects along Tustin, both north and south of the site. Examples of the different uses were shown. They acknowledge the neighbor's issues are extremely important and they want to be as sensitive and responsive as they possibly can. They have conducted one on one interviews with dozens of property owners and have attended hundreds of hours of meetings with the City, City and County planners, as well as state and federal agencies. In April they formulated an informal Planning Commission Minutes December 27, 1989 - Page 19 newsletter to communicate with the neighbors and welcomed any meetings to evaluate what might be done to mitigate individual concerns. As a result of their outreach efforts, they have revised their plan from an apartment project to a single family detached housing project. They heard from the neighbors that other than a golf course or park, in their view, single family homes would be the only acceptable alternative. He addressed the site constraints of the project. In planning the site, a number of issues had to be dealt with, including flooding concerns. The Corps of Engineers have determined that the Santa Ana River system, of which the creek is a tributary, constitutes the most serious flood hazard west of the Mississippi. Their project proposes to channelize the creek as depicted in the slide. Another constraint is the City's need for an east/west connector. Although the need for the La Veta extension has been the subject of debate for more than 30 years, they, think it's need was clearly established in the recently published Austin-Foust report dated December 7, 1989. There was also a need to create an effective perimeter buffer, being an infill site where surrounded by existing development. The response to this condition, they're proposing to provide a continuous landscape buffer, as well as open space areas and a sound wall. In addition to the physical constraints there are economic constraints. Because no public funds are available to pay for infrastructure costs at this time, the project must bear them. The costs are approximately 17 billion dollars. With respect to the project itself, the project eliminates the flooding danger of the 100 year flood by containing the flow in three concrete box culverts that will run underneath the La Veta extension. The project also proposes to extend La Veta 3,000 feet west from Tustin to Cambridge. The project further removes the 21 homes presently condemned and abandoned, and corrects the existing soils compaction problem. In addition, the project provides up to 25 feet of landscaped buffer and sound wall behind the homes fronting on Rosewood. It further provides 2.4 acres of landscaped greenbelt along the La Veta extension and architecturally the project continues the theme and character found in Hart Park and throughout Old Orange. The plan further provides 73,000 square feet of retail shopping space designed to accommodate neighborhood shopping needs. The retail component is expected to generate more than 1 million dollars a year in sales tax revenue. The project further provides 160 single family detached home lots, two walled and gated settings. This is a reduction of 20 lots from the previous plan. Lots average approximately 5100 square feet in size and conform in all respects to the recently adopted East Orange General Plan regarding medium density lot size. Other changes to the plan include: an Planning Commission Minutes December 27, 1989 - Page 20 increase in the landscaped area along La Veta of one acre; the bike trail is now located on either side of the proposed La Veta extension and runs continuously from Tustin to Cambridge. La Veta has been reduced from the previous four lane configuration to two lanes. However, the intersections have been enhanced to include additional turning lanes. The right-of-way at the intersections remain 76 feet. The right-of-way for the main stretch of extension is 65 feet. Individual driveway depths have been increased to a minimum of 20 feet. The plan now provides 285 on street guest parking spaces, a minimum of 22 feet in length. Features such as a five foot side yard or 10 feet between homes and 25 rear yard architectural control zone have been retained. For the project to deliver all of the benefits described, it is necessary for them to ask for two things. One is an increase of 29 lots in excess of the number of lots allowed under the current General Plan and zone; and two, is a re-zone of approximately 7 acres of Tustin frontage to a commercial zone. With the purchase of the property and in the absence of a financially viable public u se land alternative, a new development plan for the Santiago Golf Course property is necessary. Neighborhood concerns and site constraints have significantly restricted possible design alternatives. While the plan is a product of much compromise, it is a plan of high quality. It maintains the residential character of the surrounding community, while responding to past community concerns about the negative impacts of apartments or condominiums. They believe it will maintain, if not enhance, overall property values. It will rid the community of the condemned houses; it will increase the overall security of the area. It will provide critically needed flood control. It will provide the last opportunity for a planned east-west connection of La Veta. It will provide quality, middle income housing. It will also provide a retail center which will generate much needed sales tax revenue to the City. It increases the property tax base of the City by more than 75 million dollars. The park buffer areas, landscaped zones, architectural setbacks, fencing and sound walls are all part of their effort to mitigate as much as possible the unavoidable changes the development of the site will bring. Their plan is the product of more than four years worth of planning and processing. They have had countless numbers of meetings with the City, County and state officials, and members of the community. They have made an extra effort to involve those surrounding the site. Unfortunately, given the diversity of interest, it is simply not possible to please everyone. They feel the plan is the best, most complete, viable plan possible. It's adoption will bring to an end almost ten years of concern and uncertainty and will result in a project that delivers substantial benefit to the community. Planning Commission Minutes December 27, 1989 - Page 21 Commissioner Greek thought one of their earlier concerns was that they were questioning the need for La Veta. Mr. Burnett stated it was the City's requirement to extend La Veta and also that the City needs to extend La Veta. Where did those requirements come from? The Commission previously asked for a response to determine the adequacy/need for La Veta. Mr. Burnett responded that staff requested they incorporate the La Veta extension in their plan. As to the need for La Veta, the City Council hired an outside consultant, Austin-Foust, to do a traffic study. That study was completed December 7 and submitted to City Council. In his opinion it clearly establishes the need for the La Veta extension. Commissioner Greek said it was the same report they received and Joe goes out of his way to say he's not recommending for or against it. "The report does not make a recommendation, but only provides an objective evaluation of the effects with and without the roadway extension." Mr. Burnett responded there is a pertinent section that indicates that failure to construct a La Veta extension is expected to result in increased traffic on all parallel streets, including Palmyra, Fairway, Cambridge, Palm, Chaylnn and Greengrove. While the report doesn't take a position one way or the other, he thinks it clearly establishes a need for the La Veta extension. Commissioner Greek said if Mr. Burnett agrees with the need for the La Veta extension, as part of the planning, then he also indicated that the ultimate right-of-way should be built, with four travel lanes and a center turn median. Mr. Burnett is proposing a bit of a compromise: A street that is configured at the critical points (the intersections) to its ultimate right-of-way of 76 feet. That was designed as an enhanced intersection at both ends on Cambridge and Tustin. They are further providing adequate right-of-way (65 feet) for the 1600 foot section connecting the two intersections that would be capable in the event the need dictates. The 10 foot center median would be eliminated and the 48 foot curb-to-curb area could be restriped and accommodate the four lanes. Chairman Bosch said the staff report indicates disagreement relative to the adequacy of the right-of-way at the Cambridge and La Veta intersections to accommodate that enhancement without acquiring additional property from within the development and spending monies to rebuild the right-of-way. So they disagree that a curb-to-curb would be adequate at those locations. Planning Commission Minutes December 27, 1989 - Page 22 Mr. Burnett was not sure that concern still exists. The intersections have been modified and they have worked closely with Traffic in that regard. Those speaking in favor Nicky Calagna, 1135 E. Culver Avenue, has looked at the latest staff report (dated December 14) and she noted a revised site plan to increase the size of the lots. When the City Council said they would approve a higher density than what was being proposed. Everyone should be happy with that. She considers many things of the staff report to be "house keeping" chores for staff which could be addressed as administrative adjustments. She would like to see the project approved in concept with other information, as needed, to be forthcoming. As far as the extension of La Veta is concerned, she felt it was needed. But that is a decision that should be made by the City. It's too bad the developer has had that hanging around his neck. They're going to be stuck with the cost of it, yet they're being punished because they have to put it in. Beverly Nestande, 1800 E. Heim Avenue, made two major points and to reiterate her support for the project. She feels the project is for the good of the community. There are 11 major benefits the community will accrue, which will offset the down side. The applicants are local people who have a vested interested in the community; not someone coming from Northern California or another state. They have compromised, planned carefully and are very sensitive to the concerns of the neighbors. Those speaking in opposition Ralph Massick, 2645 North Santiago, Santa Ana, President of the Santiago Creek Homeowners Association, addressed four issues regarding the new development proposal. The need for La Veta Avenue; the adequacy of the design for the lot sizes proposed; the provisions for open space and then the compatibility of the project within the surroundings. To his recollection, no recommendation has been made, referencing the Austin-Foust study, to the La Veta extension. He is concerned with the decrease of right-of-way. In relation to the greenbelt, it is his understanding the greenbelt has actually been decreased in lots of areas. The greenbelt area being incorporated (1.9 acres) which is about 5~ or 6~ of the total project. The lot size has been increased from 4,000 to an average of 5,096 square feet per lot, but they're also stating as many as 35g or more than 1/3 of those lots could be as small as 4,500 square feet. The interface of the areas with the surrounding area is of great concern. The existing Planning Commission Minutes December 27, 1989 - Page 23 residences are designed for open space to the back. When a major street is put through behind the houses, there will be a negative impact to those people. Wayne Spring, 1243 Fairway Drive, has listened to this for the last 10 years and it keeps going back to the same thing -- La Veta. His house backs up to it and the back half of his house is single pane glass. They don't need another street there. There are other avenues the City can take. The houses are not designed to have a street behind them. Sarah Cotnik, 912 East Tularosa, addressed the traffic situation of the La Veta extension. She can only make right hand turns off of Tularosa. Part of Old Towne will need to be taken out if La Veta is widened. If the plan goes through, there will be a domino effect. Where will the children go to school with the new 160 houses? John Tyson, 1047 East Fairway Drive, said the lot size is a concern. The site plan shows the typical lot on the perimeter 90 feet x 45 feet (4,050 feet) . He does not see an average lot size of 5,097 feet. The houses shown in the perimeter appear to be 50 feet in depth, 35 feet wide. The houses end up being 1,550 square feet with a garage included. It was previously stated there would not be two story houses on the perimeter. Must we cram the maximum number of people into the open space; it's kind of an ant hill concept. If La Veta is extended, where will the traffic go eastbound? He thinks it disappears into residential neighborhoods. If the street were reduced to two lanes, it won't carry the volume of traffic. Myrtle Arends, 1340 Fairway Drive, said she was concerned about the lifestyle of Orange residents. The La Veta extension will be a major impact to the residents. She felt there was a good profit margin regarding the project and asked why it could not be 7,000 square foot lots? Carole Walters, 534 North Shaffer, spoke about the Santa Ana winds blowing and related the dirt and dust problems to the new development. There is too much land fill going on in the City of Orange and she cited the San Francisco earthquake (homes lost because of fill). The La Veta extension should not be there. Forest Sweener, 512 West Fairway Drive, cited the opinions/statements made by the applicant. Three real estate agents have told him property values will lower. The flood has not been addressed; they're talking about three culverts which can gather junk., trash and create a dam. Who is going to pay for the flood damage? Nothing has been said about the construction, noise or dirt. The project will be drug out. Planning Commission Minutes December 27, 1989 - Page 24 David Horowitz, 1324 E. Chalynn Avenue, did not talk about the problems of traffic congestion because he did not think the project by itself is going to do a great deal to worsen the grid lock situation. The quality of life is going to be diminishing whether or not the project is built. He addressed the concern of water in the golf course (flood of 1969). Flooding is a potential hazard of the river plain. Who is going to be responsible to the people who buy those homes in those areas if the channel is not adequate or the blueprints are incorrect? Karen Willis, 143 South Swidler Place, had a few concerns with the project. In looking at the map, they channeled the water down. They also only provided three flood culverts. Will that be adequate? She had problems with the commercial development; it will create more traffic. The development is across the street from R.I.O. with people who have developmental disabilities and those in wheelchairs. There is a possibility of them being harmed. The applicant mentioned there were several projects in the area that had so many dwellings per acre. Every project they mentioned in the area was either a mobile home, duplex or apartment complex. They never mentioned the single family residences -- how many dwellings per acre? Bob Siebert, 1308 Fairway Drive, voiced his objection to La Veta. It will create a speed impact at both ends. Howard Decriner, 1825 East Albine Avenue, Santa Ana, other side of the Garden Grove Freeway. He use to play in the area -- a greenbelt without sprinklers. If the Army Corps of Engineers sees the Santiago Creek and Santa Ana River area as one of the most serious area of possible flooding damage west of the Mississippi, that's a very big sign to look at. Flood damage will occur when the 100 year flood occurs. There's a lot of development going on all over Orange County; this is one more case of unwanted urban sprawl with more traffic and congestion. It will create a higher population density for the community. He would like to see the area turned into a greenbelt. Kathleen Dalaway, 700 East Lake Drive (The Morningside complex), said the one thing that has not been adequately addressed is how the water will then defuse once it comes out of the box culverts? Where it will be releasing is at the start of the Morningside project. She is concerned about the lack of inclusion and addressing of their project in the ramifications of a lot of the development going on. Specifically, that would be during the time of construction, earth being hauled out, and new land fill being brought in. Will the trucking be done on a 24 hour basis on Cambridge rather than on Tustin? How will that affect their traffic Planning Commission Minutes December 27, 1989 - Page 25 pattern, dirt and noise pollution for the area? How long will Cambridge be closed to traffic coming in and out? What would be the ramifications of a mandatory right turn in and right turn out only traffic pattern once the development has been completed? She is personally concerned about the loss of open space in the area. It is important to have something around them other than more density. She would like the developer to build a recreational facility that would be a lasting contribution to the community. Rebuttal Mr. Burnett responded to the issues. With respect to lot size, there is some confusion. He reiterated their plan conforms in all respect with the criteria set forth in the East Orange Amendment regarding lot size for medium density. It talks about average lot sizes of 5,000 square feet, minimum lot size, 4,500 square feet. There would be no more than 35g of the total lots less than 5,000 square feet. In their particular situation they have 43 lots that are in fact less than 5,000 square feet, which is approximately 25$ or 26~, well within the criteria established. Concerning Mr. Tyson's dimensions, he suspected they were from an old report. With respect to what was suggested as a decrease in greenbelt area, the landscape greenbelt area has been increased. If there is any confusion, it may stem from the fact that part of the landscape area is included in the right-of-way. With the inclusion of that, the actual landscape area has increased from 1.9 acres to 2.4 acres. Five feet of landscape was added on either side of the La Veto extension totalling approximately a half acre. There is a curious situation with respect to La Veta. He hears it's need questioned, but on the other hand, he hears people being critical about making it any smaller. The fact that La Veta is included in their plan and configured the way it is, is an effort to strike a working compromise between the variety of factions. They have become convinced there is a true need for La Veta to be extended. The Austin-Foust report again refers to traffic being generated in the amount of 22,000 cars a day at some point in the future. Currently the demand is approximately half that (10 to 11,000). Their project only generates a fraction of that traffic. It's implementation, the La Veta extension, will actually serve to relieve the traffic. There was concern expressed over the proximity of schools, concern about dust, dirt, grading, of houses being built on fill, water shortages, etc. He pointed out all of those are certainly legitimate concerns, but they're in no way unique to their plan. Those would be concerns that would have to be addressed even under the current R-1-7 zoning. In many respects, they go beyond the current zoning requirements to mitigate those issues. He responded to lot values. His opinion is that the development of the plan will actually enhance values, but Planning Commission Minutes December 27, 1989 - Page 26 agrees that is a debatable point. The neighborhood with 21 condemned and boarded up houses will definitely have an affect on values. He painted a narrative picture of what development under existing zoning would look like. With respect to flooding, the improvements being proposed are reviewed by no fewer than 15 agencies including City, County, State and Federal authorities. They are fully designed to accommodate the 100 year flood criteria. This project does not cause the flooding; it will help to control it. Chairman Bosch asked Mr. Burnett to refresh their memory regarding the dirt hauling schedule. Mr. Burnett said the total amount of fill expected to be required on an import basis is approximately 250,000 yards. The final haul route has not been established, although it would seem to make most sense to bring it in off of Tustin via a signalized intersection. That amount of fill could be dealt with in a couple of ways. Trucks haul approximately 24 yards per load. That amount of yardage would require 90 trips per day and it would extend through a period of approximately 9 months. Grading in this amount is not unique to their project. A substantial amount of grading would be required even under the existing R-1-7 zone. Chairman Bosch said another question was with regard to no two story houses at the perimeter. It appears that the current plan has instead a 25 foot setback for one story at the perimeter so there could be two story houses on those perimeter lots, is that correct? Mr. Burnett stated that was correct. The expected ratio (subject to final site planning) is approximately 25~ single story; 75~ two story. The Irvine plan called for a restriction on lot coverage; a floor area ratio of .55. Their plan intends to conform to that. Chairman Bosch referred to water diffusion impacts as it relates to the Morningside development. Mr. Burnett said part of the system that would be designed includes an energy dissipater on the west side of Cambridge. While the final design has not been determined, what it will need to accomplish is understood; that is, the flow rate has to be returned to its natural flow rate. Its impact to Morningside would be negligible. Chairman Bosch said another question was with regard to the 90 foot x 45 foot lots shown in the planned development document. He believes the drawings are mislabeled. Two dimensions don't appear to occur simultaneously on the lots. The most recent document also has that representation. Planning Commission Minutes December 27, 1989 - Page 27 Please clarify what the intent of the 90 and 45 foot dimensions on the typical lot illustration are? What are the least dimensions? Mr. Burnett said that dimension was from an earlier planned booklet and if it reads that dimension in the booklet before the Commission, it is in error. They have a variety of dimensions on the site because of the number of irregularly shaped lots. They do have an average of almost 5,100 square feet. Their largest lot is approximately 7,700 square feet, smallest being 4,500 square feet. Chairman Bosch said there were questions with the adequacy of the flood design. Please reiterate what the basis of the design is. Mr. Burnett said their flood control workshop was pretty well attended. They were able to cover that issue in depth. He had a couple of charts that could be passed out that delineates the number of entities that will review the process. It includes no fewer than 15 agencies including FEMA and the Corps of Engineers. Its design is determined and set by the Corps of Engineers and it is inspected by the appropriate authorities. Chairman Bosch said another question was with regard to how the impact of noise from the extension of La Veta would be mitigated. The addendum to the E.I.R. indicates an acoustical report on the impacts on the homes to the north side of the new La Veta extension would be provided and they have not received that. Is there a report to be given at this time? Mr. Burnett said they have run a preliminary report that indicates an interesting situation. The existing level of noise, particularly on the west end of .the project primarily in the Rosewood area is actually higher before the project than it will be after the project. The noise generation source is the freeway. The post-project condition is improved by virtue of a sound wall to be placed on the property line parallel to the La Veta extension behind the Rosewood frontage homes. They have incorporated a variety of mitigation measures including a sound wall, landscaped buffer strips, perimeter fencing, etc. With respect to an acoustic study, they have not done any further studies. They are prepared to live with the recommendations of a final study. Chairman Bosch asked what would be the actual square footage of the residences proposed? Mr. Burnett said they would be bound by the floor area ratio of .55. They have not done any final house planning; have Planning Commission Minutes December 27, 1989 - Page 28 not designed elevations or floor plans as of yet. He's guessing the approximate average square footage would be 2,400 square feet plus or minus as much as 200 square feet. The largest home would not exceed 3,200 square feet and the smallest home would not be less than 2,100 square feet. Chairman Bosch said there were two safety questions. One with regard to the seismic safety of land fill on the site, not only with regard to the Rosewood replacement, but the other fill. The second, flood plain liability. Mr. Burnett responded with respect to flood plain liability, given the fact the channel would be improved to meet all of the approving agency requirements, including E.M.A., who would be the ultimate owner of the improvements, once they're designed and completed and inspected, they would be accepted by the Orange County Flood Control Agency. At that point in time they would be responsible for the maintenance and security of the flood channel itself. The project would qualify for flood insurance. The land fill/seismic issue falls into a general category. No matter what is built on that site, that has to be dealt with. There is nothing inherently wrong with the fill situation provided it is properly done. Chairman Bosch said another question was with regard to traffic closure or tie up on Cambridge due to replacement of the existing bridge and construction of the culvert. Mr. Burnett stated that would have to be something they would have to coordinate with the City -- Traffic and Public Works. It would be done at a section at a time; the entire street would not be blocked off. Chairman Bosch identified a couple more questions: parking was a concern. It didn't appear to be any change in the parking provisions with reduction of lots in the residential area. Mr. Burnett said there were a couple of significant changes. Given the wider lot frontage, it enables the planning of 3 car garages vs. 2 car garages. As mentioned earlier, they provide 285 on street parking stalls for guest parking purposes. These stalls are a minimum of 22 feet in length. Chairman Bosch said the next question was with regard to how much open space will be provided? It was indicated the project has an increase of half an acre of landscaped open space, including that in the right-of-way, from the previous 1.9 acres. Please address the park land provision relative to the City's requirement for park land dedication or in lieu fee, and the impact of having homeowner association ownership of the land designated as park land here vs. the requirement of the City. Planning Commission Minutes December 27, 1989 - Page 29 Mr. Burnett said they do provide 2.4 acres of landscaped open space. The reason for the discrepancy in the booklet has to do with the fact that portions of it lie within the right-of-way. Those portions are landscaped and would be maintained as part of the responsibility of the owners association. Chairman Bosch asked what would be the requirement for dedication for the development of 160 dwelling units? Mr. Burnett deferred to staff on that question. To his knowledge the requirement under existing zoning, there is none. Commissioner Greek said on Page 38 of the Planning and Development Standards it says a conceptual grading plan would be submitted at the time of submittal of the tentative tract map. He didn't get one nor did anyone else. Ms. Wolff believes the General Plan contains provisions that specify general guidelines of 3 acres per 1,000 population. In lieu fees would be $1,500 per single family residence. Mr. Burnett wanted to respond to the open space issue. Given the fact their project only generates a fraction of the traffic to be handled on the proposed La Veta extension, they would take the position that the inclusion of that road is actually a public benefit. It's not unique or required by the project itself, but is a public benefit. Likewise with pedestrian and bike trails. They are providing 5.5 acres of public space. The conceptual grading plan is incorporated into the tentative tract map. Commissioner Greek's previous concern had to deal with the relationship between the proposed development and existing developments. Mr. Burnett could offer a number of reference points that tie in the proposed to the existing. Chairman Bosch noted the current plan, the TTM shows a 4 foot retaining wall at the north property line, adjacent to the mobile home park. The development plan documents still calls for a 5 to 8 foot wall. Is the 4 foot wall more accurate now than the 5 to 8 foot wall? Mr. Burnett showed a slide to illustrate the condition. The situation occurs because of the grade differential between the existing mobile home park and the Tustin grade. That condition was aggravate a little bit when the bridge was widened and the wall installed. The wall is approximately 13 to 14 feet tall. Their proposed solution is to take that 13 foot tall wall (most extreme condition) and divide that Planning Commission Minutes December 27, 1989 - Page 30 mass into two fences. One would be the lower fence 5 to 8 feet depending on the location along the site, there would then be a five foot planting area that would be planted with trees and plants. Five feet from the lower wall on the upper level would be a 6 foot wall designed to buffer the project from the commercial development. Part of their grading criteria is to try and adhere to existing grades and try and get down to existing grades as soon as possible in the commercial area. The remaining questions relate to the traffic issues. The Traffic Engineer responded to the Commission's concerns. Joe Foust, Austin-Foust Associates, 1450 N. Tustin Avenue #108, Santa Ana, prepared a traffic study of the impacts and the need for the extension of La Veta. Their traffic study was intended to be an objective evaluation of the effects of either constructing or failing to construct the La Veta extension between Tustin and Cambridge. It really didn't address the impacts of this particular project. There is not a final recommendation of the report. It was intended to provide the facts and essentially let the chips fall where they may. Let the decision be based upon the traffic facts rather than the conclusions of himself or any one individual who reads the report. He summarized what the report looked at. They looked at the build out travel demand in an east west corridor essentially along the La Veta/Fairhaven corridor. They identified if the circulation system were built out, as the General Plan currently calls for, a demand on the east west corridor would be about 40,000 cars per days. That demand, if broken up within the two alternatives, with and without the La Veta extension, with the La Veta extension, there would be a balance between La Veta with 22,000 and Fairhaven with 18,000. Failure to implement the La Veta extension would create a situation whereby 31,000 demand would be on Fairhaven and another 9,000 that would seek their way to east-west, across that corridor. Some of the streets that would be in jeopardy are Palmyra, Fairway, Chalynn, Greengrove. You would see an increase of traffic on residential streets that are parallel to La Veta in this corridor. One of the other impacts seen is if the extension were completed, some traffic would be attracted that would use either the 22 Freeway or 17th Street. Up to about 5,000 of the total demand on the street (of the 22,000) would be parallel arterial striped streets or even the freeway. In its present configuration, Fairhaven could never carry the projected 31,000. Unless it is fully improved to its master planned cross section, there is serious question whether it could carry the forecasted 31,000. The actual completion of the extension will in fact attract some amount of traffic to use residential streets that would perhaps use the freeway. Their forecast was as much as 3,000 would use Fairhaven and La Veta if the Planning Commission Minutes December 27, 1989 - Page 31 opportunity was presented. The major conclusion he came to is that there are certain residential streets that are parallel to and within the same corridor of La Veta that are primarily at risk. The decision has to be made. Do those streets continue to have the future threat of increased traffic or we have an opportunity to provide arterial capacity that would reduce the potential increase in residential streets within the corridor. It's not a clear picture that the extension is good or bad; it certainly has an impact both ways regarding the diversion of traffic. Chairman Bosch said everyone indicates that all of the conclusions are based on traffic other than that generated by the project. The project proposes to generate 8,700 trips per day. Where does that traffic go? How does it impact the current arterial master plan of highways and the surrounding residential streets? Mr. Foust did not look carefully at this particular project. The 8,700 figure is new to him. He thought there was an E.I.R. traffic study prepared for the project, but he did not look at it in great detail. Chairman Bosch said there were a number of questions significant to the neighbors relative to right turn only restrictions on streets. Is that a natural condition of the volume of cars or more closely related to the location of conflicting intersections? Mr. Foust's traffic study was directed specifically at the La Veta extension and did not deal with this particular project. It did look at the kink provided if La Veta were extended. It would create a La Veta to Cambridge, north to La Veta. It's a significant jog with a demand of 22,000 cars per day. It's going to take considerable intersection enhancement in order to handle these cars. The Commission and Mr. Foust discussed the transportation element of the General Plan update and the balancing of the transportation system. In Mr. Foust's opinion, there should be some opportunity to mitigate putting in a through street behind the residential areas. At a later date, there are very f ew opportunities to mitigate traffic on Palmyra, Fairway and the other streets. There is a definite need for the street. Chairman Bosch said the neighbors are willing to put up with slightly worse conditions on Fairway than they would with the additional condition of La Veta behind them. Neither condition is acceptable, but given the choice it's what he heard. The public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes December 27, 1989 - Page 32 Commissioner Master, for the record, wanted to address the addendum to the E.I.R. as being valid and reflecting the letter from Mr. Herrick. Mr. Herrick stated the addendum procedure under C.E.Q.A. provides for adding supplementary material to an E.I.R. where there are changes of a minor nature or technical nature that do not substantially change the environmental impacts or mitigation measures proposed for the project. Having reviewed the addendum, it does not propose new information concerning impacts or significant changes in mitigation measures. The addendum procedure appears to be appropriate provided that the Commission makes the findings that are referred to in his memorandum. First, the E.I.R. was adequate and accurate with respect to the original proposal and that the addendum itself is adequate and accurate in addressing what the changes have worked on that. project. Commissioner Master said the Commission received this evening the Findings, Facts and Support of Findings Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the Villa Santiago Project. None of them have had a chance to read it. He wanted a reading on the acoustic situation. What will be the anticipated noise level? As all of us know, the East Orange plan has had its problems regarding acoustics. He can't hold the applicant responsible for lowering the noise to City standards that currently exist because of the freeway. On the other hand, they should be responsible for not increasing the noise level over the existing. It's a tough one to handle. He doesn't doubt they are exceeding existing standards in some cases. Chairman Bosch said the applicant indicated they would abide by the recommendations of the previous report. It led to the conclusion with regard to a sound wall and on-site mitigation for adjacent homes. Commissioner Greek spoke about La Veta. Is it needed? Is the Commission convinced all previous questions have been answered and are acceptable? With the increased density, the Commission has the right and opportunity to ask for increased open space. The environment being created is not going to be compatible with this part of the City. Chairman Bosch's opinion was that they had to look at trade offs. Is the extension radically going to help the traffic situation or do they need to look at larger scale solutions, including lifestyles. He doesn't mind trading a smaller lot size for some greater public benefits. With regard to the Planning Commission Minutes December 27, 1989 - Page 33 street, he would rather have the open space and greenbelt, especially on top of the culvert. The basic tract lay out looks fairly decent if you could make some minor connections of the proposed internal private streets to Cambridge, to the existing Rosewood, part of it back out to Tustin without making the link through causing another thru fare situation. He doesn't mind the commercial development on Tustin; it's not an appropriate spot for single family residential on Tustin. The basic plan layout has a lot of attractiveness to it, but instead of a].1 the little cul-de-sacs make that the circulation pattern and leave La Veta as open space over the culvert. The Commission discussed in great detail the need for the La Veta extension and the trade offs envisioned. They agreed it was an acceptable plan except for the La Veta extension. They would like demonstrated how the La Veta extension w~u3d benefit traffic flow in the area. Mr. Burnett is looking for an approval in concept. There is still an open question regarding the La Veta extension. Their project doesn't create the need; it is created elsewhere. They would commit to provide the 60 foot right-of-way and dedicate it to be used for whatever purpose the City chose. They're prepared to put in the improvements in accordance with the section that could be mutually developed and would pay for that. The Commission asked for a design that would meet said criteria: greenbelt area dimensions, lot size or cluster housing, roadway system that doesn't connect from Tustin to Cambridge, but does tie into Rosewood, and the creek alignment. A bridge system will be required for the crossing. Would the applicant be willing to consider such a proposal? Chairman Bosch used the map exhibit to explain his proposal for the street configuration to Mr. Burnett. Mr. Burnett was willing to look at the plan and work with staff, but wants to make sure they are not creating a problem for themselves in terms of forever precluding the extension of La Veta. They are a little more convinced for the need of the La Veta extension. Chairman Bosch said the plan essentially gives two options: the basic project without La Veta, but with the landscaped green belt; and the identical project with La Veta through it and the cost of the additional mitigation measures to take care of the noise and impacts upon the neighbors. He was not in tune with the economics of the project and deferred that to the applicant. Planning Commission Minutes December 27, 1989 - Page 34 Mr. Burnett would like to draw this to a close fairly soon. They are happy to look at it. If it turns out the La Veta extension is necessary and it would happen in accordance with the project, that's fine. Or, if it is mutually determined that it is not necessary and they can make minor changes to the plan, they will do that too. Commissioner Greek thought there was a problem. Mr. Burnett keeps saying conceptual plan. The Commission is not asked to approve a conceptual plan. They need definitive documents that the applicant can live with at total build .out. There won't be any minor revisions to the plan. He explained the process. Standards which are approved will not be changed. Conceptually, everyone is in agreement, but the Commission could not approve a conceptual plan. Mr. Burnett was talking about an approval in concept would be the basic plan subject to mutually determining the right-of-way section. Even to the extent of La Veta not going fully through all the way to Cambridge. He envisions approval of the basic plan subject to finalizing of a right-of-way section. Chairman Bosch would opt for a plan that has the same lot size, the number of houses, the commercial area, the zoned boundaries where they are proposed to be, but doesn't have La Veta going through the site. As in lieu of that, private residential street systems that defuse the traffic and don't allow through movement without impacting Rosewood or the people on Fairway from the project. And as the remainder of the Santiago Creek right-of-way, not the La Veta right-of-way, built, dedicated and developed as open space on top of that flood control boxed culvert. Alternatives could be worked out with minor changes to the tract map. He wants to end up with usable space to trade of f_ for the reduced lot size. Jack Hardy, Burnett/Ehline Company, said they felt there was merit in what has been discussed. One of the constraints they are dealing with in processing is the timing consideration. They asked the Commission to consider the following: To make a finding as to whether La Veta is needed or not and make a decision on their application. They would solicit the Commission if they were to find La Veta was not necessary, to give them guidance or parameters as previously suggested. Then in the event the City Council felt the same as the Commission on their plan, they would have some guidance in which to re-draw. It is difficult for them to re-draw or consider the implications of it. Their first priority is to get a decision on the merits of the application. Planning Commission Minutes December 27, 1989 - Page 35 Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Greek, that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council to deny General Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map 13901, Zone Change 1068, Conditional Use Permit 1589 and Environmental Impact Report 1143 for the proposed development because of what has been presented, the extensive discussion on the need or not for the La Veta extension, the adequate design of the subdivision or the planned community district. The intent of the motion is that the Commission believes that generally speaking the development of the commercial property along Tustin appears appropriate subject to careful review of grading sections adjacent to adjoining properties and meeting the mitigation requirements identified in the E.I.R. and staff report, including the proper alignment of streets. And that with the provision of the proposed right-of-way of La Veta for the major section of the site being developed as landscaped open space to the same wa.dth of right-of-way as adjacent easements as a trade off for th~a> reduced lot size. The Commission finds that La Veta developed through the site is not necessary, but see the need for modification of the tract map to provide proper access to the proposed residential layout, either entirely from Cambridge or with a minor portion from Tustin, but no through street from Cambridge to Tustin. And that all collateral mitigation measures that would relate to the development of the previously proposed La Veta right-of-way as open space be modified. One of the reasons the extension of La Veta is not warranted, in addition to minimal relief of traffic elsewhere, (really is diverting the load) is that it's extension causes substantial detrimental impacts upon existing surrounding residential areas that aren't acceptable, nor does that extension adequately provide an adequate trade off for the reduced lot size. The environmental impact document was recommended for denial because the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Consideration was submitted to the Commission at 6:30 p.m., this date and there was no opportunity to review it. The applicant requested an action on that document. Without time to review it, the Commission did not have time to give any reasonable action on it except denial. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, that the Planning Commission adjourn to their next regularly scheduled meeting of January 3, 1990. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Greek, Master, Scott NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hart MOTION CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 12:10 a.m. /sld